Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[IanHulett]

Why do you guys insist on shifting the burden of proof? If you're trying to convince someone, you need to show the evidence. I'm not trying to convince anybody. The name of this thread is implying YOU'RE the one trying to do the convincing. Thing is, you're not proving anything. You were just making claim after claim after claim, but no evidence/proof.

You wrote:

"Randy, will anything convince you to become an atheist?" and "Actually, not being willing to change your mind based on evidence is one way a person can be intellectually dishonest. "

Since you are asking me whether I would change MY mind and become an atheist based on "evidence", I think it is fair for me to ask what evidence you have that God does not exist.

You're twisting my words. Asking if whether or not you're willing to change your mind based on evidence is not the same as making a claim about something. It's criticizing the way a lot of religious people are close minded, that being that they would never ever change their mind no matter what argument/evidence is presented even if they lived to be 1,000,000. So, I don't need to provide evidence that god doesn't exist. I don't claim to know that God doesn't exist, I simply am not convinced he does, believe it or not, there is a difference. Since I'm not trying to prove anything, it's not my job to prove anything.

The name of this thread is "Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach" So, if I'm not mistaken, you're the one trying to prove something... The Resurrection. I'm still waiting for that proof.